Towards transparency and diversity? Raising awareness of challenges of NDICI-Global Europe for CSOs
Last October, CONCORD published a report casting a critical eye on the funding going to and through CSOs under NDICI-Global Europe geographic programming. Now, in light of the ongoing mid-term evaluation of NDICI-GE and the mid-term review of its programming, we are striving to raise awareness of shifts in the EU international cooperation funding landscape for CSOs. The outcomes of ‘Who holds the lion’s share? A closer look at Global Europe funds for CSOs’ demonstrate the lack of transparency of funding decisions related to EU international cooperation programming, and the limitations placed on CSOs’ potential to contribute to the implementation of EU international cooperation. As we await the results of the processes that assess NDICI-GE, we are reaching out to EU institutions, using the findings of this report to demonstrate the challenges in implementing NDICI-GE, especially regarding its geographic allocations.
These references to the central role of PCSD in advancing the SDGs reflect CONCORD’s advocacy work in particular leading up to and following the EU’s Voluntary Review on implementation of the 2030 Agenda. They especially echo exchanges at our dialogue event, ‘Agenda 2030 at halfway – Strengthening policy coherence for the Sustainable Development Goals’. This initiative was undertaken with the support of CONCORD’s partners, La Coordinadora, CNCD-11.11.11, within the framework of the EU Presidency Project**. **The event, which we held on 13th November, brought together representatives from the Spanish EU Presidency, Member States, Commission officials, the secretariat of the Parliament’s DEVE Committee, representatives from the European Parliament Research Service and experts from the ECDPM and OECD.
With regard to the transparency of funding allocation under NDICI-GE, there is very little data available. In particular, it is impossible to assess the share of funding going to or through CSOs for 70% of the geographic NDICI-GE budget (7.5bn) analysed in our report. On top of this, we cannot access information about the types of CSOs that this funding is going to.
The lack of availability of this information largely stems from the fact that there is no monitoring or reporting in place to show the extent to which indirect management of funding reaches CSOs.
Due to limited capacity of the EU Delegations in partner countries, indirect management has been extensively adopted, whereby management of funding is essentially outsourced to international organisations and Member State agencies.
Where grant management has been delegated to the organisations called** ‘pillar-assessed entities,’** details regarding funding decisions are not made accessible. This means that the preferred funding management mode is intransparent, and raises questions about compliance with the NDICI-GE Regulation and the EU’s commitment to inclusive partnership, transparency and mutual accountability.
On top of issues around transparency, we see that CSOs – and in particular small and local CSOs – face barriers in accessing EU funding. Barriers in accessing funding also relate to the practice of indirect management. It is impossible for most CSOs to become pillar-assessed entities, and with 60% of funding being delegated to these entities, a concerning situation emerges in which CSOs are precluded from accessing a significant portion of funding available under NDICI-GE geographic programming.
In the case of direct management, the eligibility criteria of calls for proposals present small and local CSOs with barriers. These organisations may face difficulties around the technicality of the proposal, financial capacity, and access to information and support to adequately complete their proposals.
Furthermore, EU external action limits CSOs’ role to policy and advocacy, human rights and humanitarian response. The limitation of CSOs to these areas fails to recognise the potential of CSOs as** implementing partners** of EU international cooperation and as service providers, especially when state authorities fail to fulfil their roles in this regard. CSOs also have a key part to play in bringing the voices of marginalised communities into the sustainable development process, thus furthering the Agenda 2030 commitment to leave no one behind.
We continue to highlight these issues to stakeholders in the EU institutions. For example, our Director, Tanya Cox, participated in an exchange of views with the Parliament’s DEVE Committee on 13 February to share evidence on the trends of EU funding to CSOs based on the insights of our report. We will also deliver webinars in English, French and Spanish to equip CSOs in EU partner countries with the information to effectively engage with EU Delegations on CSO funding.
In our dialogue with the institutions, we continue to put forward our report’s main recommendations:
- Allocate 15% of NDICI-GE budget to CSOs
- Provide resources for the implementation of the geographisation principle
- Public dialogue for EC accountability
- Accessibility and transparency of information on NDICI-GE funding allocations
With our ongoing advocacy work, we strive to push forward greater diversity and transparency of funding for CSOs and to support the EU in achieving its international cooperation commitments.
